The impetus for Communism, as explained by Rod Stewart

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

Alone in a crowd on a bus after work
and I’m dreaming
The guy next to me has a girl in his arms
My arms are empty
How does it feel when the girl next to you
says she loves you
It seem so unfair when there’s love everywhere
but there’s none for me

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

Someone to take on a walk by the lake
Lord let it be me
Someone who’s shy
Someone who’ll cry at sad movies
I know I would die if I ever found out
she was fooling me
You’re just a dream and as real as it seems
I ain’t that lucky

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

All of my friends have a ring on their finger
They have someone
Someone to care for them it ain’t fair
I got no one
The car overheated
I called up and pleaded
There’s help on the way
I called you collect you didn’t accept
You had nothing to say

Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain

But if you were here with me
I’d feel so happy I could cry
You are so dear to me
I just can’t let you say goodbye

Robert Stacey Stacy McCain has a couple of articles up concerning Communism:

How Much Do You Hate Commies?
Posted on | February 6, 2014 | 125 Comments

Salon.com’s Jesse Myerson (@JAMyerson) says “misconceptions” about Communism are the real problem, although survivors who escaped Communist regimes might beg to disagree.

Personally, I think the main problem with Communism is that we haven’t shot enough evil lying Commie scum:

Five years after the Bolshevik Revolution, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises predicted that the Soviet project was doomed to fail. In his classic work Socialism, Mises explained that the attempt to replace the market system with central economic planning could not succeed, because the planners could not possibly have the information necessary to make all the decisions which, in a market economy, are made by individuals whose needs and desires are reflected in prices: “The problem of economic calculation is the fundamental problem of Socialism.”
“Everything brought forward in favour of Socialism during the last hundred years,” Mises wrote in 1922, “in thousands of writings and speeches, all the blood which has been spilt by the supporters of Socialism, cannot make Socialism workable. ….

Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless — but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea.”

More at the link. Mr Myerson took exception to Mr McCain’s article, through Twitter, which generated this second article from Mr McCain, in which he said, in part:

Jesse Myerson is not interested in the facts of history or economics that would contradict his communist enthusiasms. Myerson is merely striking the pose of a radical intellectual, expecting admiration and applause from those who share his socialist sympathies. No doubt he hopes these gestures will enable him to obtain TV appearances, book contracts and speaking invitations. His purported “idealism” is thus motivated by selfish ambition: The narcissist’s desire to be seen as praiseworthy, and to acquire an easy income by advocating ideas popular with the Left.

More at the original.

Mr Myerson is one of the more fortunate of the “millennials,” one who actually got a job, but it seems to me that the more important article from him is not the one advocating Communism, but a slightly earlier one:

It’s a new year, but one thing hasn’t changed: The economy still blows. Five years after Wall Street crashed, America’s banker-gamblers have only gotten richer, while huge swaths of the country are still drowning in personal debt, tens of millions of Americans remain unemployed – and the new jobs being created are largely low-wage, sub-contracted, part-time grunt work.

Millennials have been especially hard-hit by the downturn, which is probably why so many people in this generation (like myself) regard capitalism with a level of suspicion that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. But that egalitarian impulse isn’t often accompanied by concrete proposals about how to get out of this catastrophe. Here are a few things we might want to start fighting for, pronto, if we want to grow old in a just, fair society, rather than the economic hellhole our parents have handed us.

Mr Myerson’s five “solutions”:

  1. Guaranteed work for everybody;
  2. Social Security for all, meaning some form of a guaranteed annual income;
  3. Take back the land, in which he rails against landlords;
  4. Make everything owned by everybody; and
  5. A public bank in every state, an odd suggestion if everything is to already be owned by everybody.

Mr Myerson’s real complaint? That some guys have all the luck, that some guys get all the breaks. In the meantime, he does nothing but complain.

And complaining about the guys who have all the luck is the entire impetus behind socialism, behind Communism, behind the silly “Occupy Wall Street” movement of which he was a part, and, really, in today’s America, behind liberalism in general.

Well, maybe I could combitch a bit, too. In 2014, Cole Hamels will be paid $22,500,000 by the Philadelphia Phillies, and that’s a whole lot more than I will make. But Mr Hamels can put a four-seam fastball and a cutter over the plate, and I can’t. Mr Hamels has a lot more athletic ability than I ever had, which means that, in Rod Stewart’s terms, he had all the luck, but he also worked hard on developing the talent that God gave him.

The fact that our friends on the left have never been able to accept — though so many of them take full advantage of it in their own lives — is that, despite Thomas Jefferson’s famous words, we are not all created equal. Some people are bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, better looking, have nicer voices, whatever, than other people, and that will always be the case. And the government cannot make people equal.

The esteemed Mr McCain has been taking Mr Myerson to task through several articles on his site:

In them, Mr McCain, who will never use four words when seventeen would serve just as well,1 goes through the history of Communism, and says that, regardless of what the theorists of Communism may have said about it, the reality was vastly different, horribly different. To his credit, Mr Myerson concedes that point:

But continues:

  That is, essentially, what Karl Marx predicted, that capitalism would eventually be able to provide so much, through industrialization and increases in productivity, that there would be plenty, enough for all of the proletariat to share, eliminating the need for the capitalists, and enabling all of the workers to get all of the rewards for their production. But that gets us to a couple other tweets from Mr Myerson:

and

 

And this is where my argument differs from Mr McCain’s.  He spends agood amount of time and effort noting the economic failures of Communism, as it was imposed by the very hard men who used it to gain political power. But, to me, the problems with Comunism, as a theory, stem not from economics or history, but from a deep failure to understand human nature.

I’ve been in construction, in one form or another, for my entire professional life, and I’m trying to figure out just where we are going to find all of the men who drive the “honey trucks” to clean out portable toilets on construction sites, if work is no longer necessary to survive?

The very simple fact is that we are nowhere close to the society and economy which Mr Myerson envisions. One of his demands, now, is that there should be a universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone’s bank account every month, along with a guaranteed job for everybody. Of course, he has said that this should be just a very basic income, enough on which to survive, but barely, but that if subsistence satisfies these (non) workers, that’s fine.

And here is where he demonstrates his lack of understanding of human nature:

 

Despite “welfare people” having it real hard, some of them, many of them, have chosen to accept the Faustian bargain of welfare: that we will give them money not to work, just as long as they are willing to live in poverty.

In the end, Mr Myerson suffers from the same problem as the highly educated, full of noble intentions, good people who created our welfare system: he is not only intelligent and educated, but he is hard-working himself,2 and the notion that there are people who are simply not as intelligent and not as hard-working is simply outside his paradigm. The people who originated our welfare program, the same type as Mr Myerson, never really grasped that there would be people who wouldn’t view welfare as a temporary hand up, until they could get a decent job and proudly work for their living; we have now had fifty years of President Johnson’s “Great Society” to prove just how wrong that was. When that “guaranteed job” he envisions the state providing turns out to be driving the honey truck, or shingling roofs in July, or digging footings, it just might turn out that a whole lot of people with those universal basic incomes would rather sit at home suffering through having only basic cable.

I have watched plenty of Star Trek in my time, and by the time we got to The Next Generation, we were told that the time of plenty existed on earth, that everyone was materially satisfied. They also told us that we would have warp-driven starships which could take us to new planets with new civilizations, and that all men would be brothers, and the like.3 And perhaps those days will come, three hundred years from now when Gene Roddenberry told us they would, but we are living now, today, in this world, and those things have not arrived, and are not close. When Mr Myerson tells us that “smart good robots (will be) freeing everyone from work!” he has failed to realize just how much time it will take to get from today to the future he envisions.

Who knows? Perhaps one day we will have all of the material wealth we could ever want, all provided for virtually nothing, with completely pollution-free sources of energy, and maybe, just maybe, the kind of socialism/Communism Mr Myerson sees could actually work. And perhaps we will have warp-drive starships, and alliances with the Vulcans and Andorans. Regrettably, Mr Myerson’s visions are just as much science fiction as Star Trek.
_________________________________

  1. A failing your Editor has as well.
  2. Or so I judge by the sheer volume of his writing and the dogged determination he has put into defending his positions.
  3. Perhaps we can ignore the grittier, not so wealthy societies depicted in Deep Space Nine.

27 Comments

  1. Myerson’s entire take on future human life seems unbelievably boring! Men without ambition, goals, ideas, vision? Sloths and ants. Seems to me there is no meaning to or enjoyment in that kind of life.

  2. In the end, Mr Myerson suffers from the same problem as the highly educated, full of noble intentions, good people who created our welfare system

    Good God, Dana, why do you keep giving our enemies FAR more credit than they deserve? If they had “Noble intentions”, they’d be working with orphans in Africa or doing other work that was genuinely compassionate. Call them for what they are – power lusting scum who want to take all our freedom away.

  3. But, to me, the problems with Comunism, as a theory, stem not from economics or history, but from a deep failure to understand human nature.

    Not so. Communism understood human nature PERFECTLY, or, to be more specific, the dark side of human nature, the side that lusts for power and the desire to control others. And it understands the side of human nature that good people are more easily fooled if you pretend to want power for altruistic reasons than if you just serve your thuggery straight up.

    Make no mistake about it – when it comes time to “Redistribute the wealth”, it will be Mr. Myerson and his ilk that will be in charge of the distributing. Don’t think people like him have good intentions for even one second!

  4. In short, Dana, you are making the mistake of assuming that the principal problem with Marxism/Communism/Socialism is that it is impractical, when the real problem with it is that it is EVIL.

  5. Eric
    Monday, 10 February 2014 at 20:40

    But, to me, the problems with Comunism, as a theory, stem not from economics or history, but from a deep failure to understand human nature.

    Not so. Communism understood human nature PERFECTLY, or, to be more specific, the dark side of human nature, the side that lusts for power and the desire to control others. And it understands the side of human nature that good people are more easily fooled if you pretend to want power for altruistic reasons than if you just serve your thuggery straight up.

    Yeah, I think that in general the nature versus nurture debate which is often imagined as taking place with the left, has given us the impression that socialists embrace an extreme tabula rasa theory of human nature. Although their rhetoric seems to tend in that direction, we should not forget that their new socialist man is not imagined as rising up without a significant amount of human social pruning – herd culling so to speak. The new socialist man will be as much selectively bred by the socialist bureaucracy, as spontaneously rising out of the fresh plowed ground of a humanistic collectivism totally ignorant of pernicious ideas like private property.

    I also took a look at Myerson’s Salon essay in question; and although I find almost nothing so rhetorically tedious as critiques of positions which rely on references to supposed “informal fallacies” (as opposed to errors of deductive inference), the Myerson essay is a veritable object lesson in the construction of, and engagement with, strawmen.

    Just look at the list of stupidities he is supposedly intent on refuting. They are doctrines – or rather spewings of jumbled concepts – which I have never actually heard anyone proclaim.

    Frankly, there is just so much stupidity and falseness packed into each paragraph and the underlying assumptions they entail, that you could spend a page per paragraph laying bare the deceptions. I don’t have the time or the inclination, but just glance at a coupe of the following howlers:

    Supposed misconception 1: “Only communist economies rely on state violence.”

    Really? Who’s made that claim? Fascist economies are widely recognized as relying on state violence. Mercantilist/monopoly economies also are notorious for the same thing. It is free market economies, capitalist in the sense that private individuals are allowed to own tools and land, that do not as a rule deploy state violence in order to control the exchanges of the producers. The intention is after all, to protect free exchange … unlike in communist, fascist, or mercantilist/monopoly systems.

    Anyway, to continue with our informal fallacy theme, Myerson is also engaging in the notorious “Tu quoque” fallacy. I guess Myerson imagines that everyone kills, so what’s the problem when communists do it, eh?

    “Communism killed 110 million* people for resisting dispossession.”

    I don’t know how many books I’ve read on Communism and communist brutality, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen it said that most were killed for resisting dispossession. In fact, you would have to be somewhat better informed than the average American is to even know who the Kulaks were, before you could in Myersons’s words, even begin to “pretend to care about” them.

    On the other hand the show trials and purges were highlighted by the communists murderers themselves.

    Of course, as an idiot that makes a specialty in compounding his idiocy, Myerson seems to take comfort that many of those killed were committed communists themselves. Well so do I; but not for the same reason that that stupid-son-of-a-bitch Myerson does.

    See, Stalin’s paranoia aside, it was communist legal theory and communist ideological commitment, and communist anthropology that enabled that monkey Stalin to get his way. A paranoiac without a chorus is just a crazy man yelling offstage. But he had communist ideology (and metaphysics such as they were) on his side as well.

    There was no real rule of law in the Soviet Union. And under communist theory the principle of the rule of law is itself rejected.

    “Capitalist governments don’t commit human rights atrocities.

    Whatever one’s assessment of the crimes committed by Communist leaders, it is unwise for capitalism’s cheerleaders to play the body-count game, because if people like me have to account for the gulag and the Great Sparrow campaign, they’ll have to account for the slave trade, indigenous extermination …”

    Never heard that claim made. And Myerson confuses capitalism, especially the free market rule of law kind he wishes to indict in other specious Tu quoque defense, with state monopolies, royal domains, and, speaking of slavers, Islam.

    Speaking also of human nature

  6. Eric wrote:

    In the end, Mr Myerson suffers from the same problem as the highly educated, full of noble intentions, good people who created our welfare system

    Good God, Dana, why do you keep giving our enemies FAR more credit than they deserve? If they had “Noble intentions”, they’d be working with orphans in Africa or doing other work that was genuinely compassionate. Call them for what they are – power lusting scum who want to take all our freedom away.

    You could make that argument concerning the very top people, but when you go down through the ranks, most of them were people who really did believe that our welfare system could work and would work.

    Remember, our welfare system was created by people in the 1960s, the Kennedy-Johnson idealists, people who really did think that they were smart enough to solve every problem. David Halberstam documented this attitude amongst the foreign policy establishment in The Best and the Brightest, but it wasn’t limited to them.

    Remember your college days? The people brought in by President Kennedy really never left the university in their mind-set — an argument which could be made about Mr Myerson as well — and they put forth policies which were practically indistinguishable from a coffee shop bull session, or as Steve 57 put it on Patterico a few days ago, a freshman dorm pot party.

  7. most of them were people who really did believe that our welfare system could work and would work.

    And your evidence for that is … ?

    The welfare system was created by socialists or quasi-socialists who hated capitalism and used the welfare system to punish success and achievement by stealing from them and giving their money to lazy bums. In short, these welfare state socialists whose intentions you hold in high regard were THIEVES, and proud of it.

    You need to get it in your head that left wingers ARE BAD PEOPLE. Just look at this site, for example. The two principal left wingers here, Pho, and Perry, were rotten to the core. Pho was a classic misanthrope who hated everybody and Perry turned out to be a bully who, when he couldn’t win an argument the legitimate way, started threatening to have people fired if they wouldn’t shut up. And don’t forget that almost all left wingers support Partial Birth Abortion, which is killing an innocent baby by torture. Sure, these left wing scum pretend to be noble idealists, but that’s just a lie to hide their true intentions.

  8. Or as Mike Rowe might say to the commie bastards (special note to comrade Perry):

    But I’ve never supported the “underdog” simply because they’re not the favorite. Size might matter in some pursuits, (I’ve been assured it does,) but in business, there’s nothing inherently good about being small, and nothing inherently bad about being big. My foundation supports skilled labor, American manufacturing, entrepreneurial risk, a solid work ethic, and personal responsibility. We reward these qualities wherever we find them, whether they’re in David or Goliath.

    Bolds, mine.

    Again, what an empty soulless world of humanity we will have if these slothful commies get to deprive our people of skilled labor, American manufacturing, entrepreneurial risk, a solid work ethic, and personal responsibility. Americans don’t need 100 weeks of unemployment or a guaranteed annual income. They need the leftists to get the hell out of the way so the rest of us can create opportunity.

    And as Robert Stacey Stacy McCain stated: “Personally, I think the main problem with Communism is that we haven’t shot enough evil lying Commie scum:” I agree even though I did my best.

  9. Seriously, Dana, are you going to let your freedom be stolen by these scum sucking left wing pigs just because they claim to have good intentions? Because that is what’s at stake here – your freedom, and the freedom of every decent person in this country. If we are not willing to FIGHT for our freedom, to tell the scum sucking pigs to go to hell, then, when we lose our freedom, ultimately it will have been our fault.

  10. Of course, as an idiot that makes a specialty in compounding his idiocy, Myerson

    You make a grave mistake in assuming these people are idiots, just as Dana does in assuming they have “Good intentions”. I have come to believe that Marxism is based on a most sophisticated foundation of lies, all of which goes far in explaining why, despite all the mass murder, despotism, and threats to world peace, it has never been morally condemned in the way that, say, Nazism has been. And thus Mr. Myerson can get away with peddling his slop because he can still pose as an “Idealist” looking to create “The Perfect Society”.

    In order for conservatives, libertarians, and other freedom lovers to win, the myth of left wing moral superiority has to be destroyed. Left wing ideology has to be attacked and demolished on a moral basis, not merely an intellectual or practical basis.

  11. I have come to believe that Marxism is based on a most sophisticated foundation of lies, all of which goes far in explaining why, despite all the mass murder, despotism, and threats to world peace, it has never been morally condemned in the way that, say, Nazism has been.

    Agreed Eric. I sometimes use the Seven Deadly Sins to define communism. The entire basis of that cult of death can be found in the Seven Sins.
    1. Pride: They take pride in believing themselves not only to be superior intellects but superior people to those “lesser beings”. The alternate Virtue would be Humility. Ever meet a humble Narcissist? Has any leftist on TV or any leftist blogger here ever shown one ounce of Humility?
    2. Avarice/Greed: They are all greedy to take what others have built with their own sweat and blood. Always ready to raise taxes…on somebody else. Always saying stupid thinks like: “You didn’t build that”. The opposite Virtue would be Generosity. Studies show conservatives to be more generous than leftists. And Generosity is not just in money or wealth, it is also in being willing to teach others how to succeed on their own.
    3. Envy: This one is the most self evident of Leftist principles. They envy everyone and every thing more successful than themselves. Hell, they even envy other who could be more successful even if they aren’t yet! The opposite of this Vice is Love. You hear leftists all the time telling us how much they love “the children”, all the while endorsing their abortion. Or how they love minorities, while they keep them on leftist plantations like Detroit. Love is more than Leftist Lip Service. Love requires one to put the well being of another ahead of himself. Since leftists by nature are atheists/agnostics they have no moral compass as to what Real Love requires. They do not know the Love of God so they can’t know the love of mankind.
    4.Wrath/Anger: Ever notice how angry leftists always seem? They’re always pissed off at some one or some thing. They always feel slighted and that also goes back to Greed and Envy. The Virtue to Wrath would be Kindness. Has anyone here ever met a truly Kind leftist? Was Marx kind? Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Didn’t think so.
    5. Lust: “Tune in, turn on and Drop out”, just about says it all about leftist lust. But Lust just ain’t about sex. They lust after the love, success, looks, talent of others. But most of all they Lust for Power. The opposite of Lust is Self Control. Their ability to Self Control was apparent in Occupy Wall Street as the craped on police cars, robed and raped each other and left a toxic mess of trash and sewage in their wake.
    6. Gluttony: Gluttony is misunderstood to mean eating or drinking too much. It’s so much more than that. Gluttony is devouring anything one can in excess. Fame,, power, money, sex, drugs…all in overdoses. But since the opposite of Gluttony is Faith & Temperance and since the leftist is capable of neither the former because of his disbelief in God and the latter because of his need for Greed, Temperance is a non-starter for a commie.
    7. Sloth: Ahh, their Favorite sin. The ability to sit around and complain about everything everyone else has. And make a living out of doing it. Plus, their ability to convince others to do the same. True Believing Communists, one and all. Now since the opposite of Sloth is Zeal, we can be assured the leftist will engage only in “If it feels good do it”, another of their favorite, and most telling mottos.

    So yes Eric: “In order for conservatives, libertarians, and other freedom lovers to win, the myth of left wing moral superiority has to be destroyed” WITH GREAT PREJUDICE!

  12. One other thing. There is The Hoagie Corollary to the Seven Sins. At the intersection of Lust and Envy occurs Hate. What the left Lusts for, Envies but cannot have they then Hate. That’s why they don’t have political rivals…they have Enemies! That’s why they say some of the most outrageous things ( like someone should crap in Palin’s mouth) and think nothing of it till it’s shoved back at them. That’s why it’s shaping up that Obama will use the IRS like Stalin used the KGB or Hitler used the Gestapo. Hate. They hate opposition of any kind. Therefore Eric, by their very nature they Hate us. Given the chance, the left, even guys you know like comrade Perry, would march us to re-education camps and if that failed to firing squads. Those of us who strive to attain the Seven Virtues cannot be tolerated by those who espouse the Seven Sins.

  13. Agreed Eric. I sometimes use the Seven Deadly Sins to define communism. The entire basis of that cult of death can be found in the Seven Sins.

    Hoagie, this piece was so excellent it should be printed in every major newspaper and on every major blog on the planet. It should be the feature of Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points on every show for a week! This is a veritable Ten Commandments and Declaration of Independence for freedom lovers everywhere! It should be read at every meeting of the GOP, from a local caucus right up to the next Republican National Convention. If it were broadcast loud and far, telling the truth about left wingers and their agenda, victory for the Forces of Freedom would be that much sooner in coming. Bravo!

  14. There is just one other point I would like to add, Hoagie, that your piece inspired me to think about. Note how left wingers use the word “Social” a lot, as in “Social justice” or even the word socialism itself. Of course, “Social” is the opposite of “Individual”, and thus such things as “Individual rights” and “Individual responsibilities” are replaced by terms like “Social rights” (meaning: welfare) and “Social responsibilities” (meaning: stealing tax money from the productive to pay for the lazy).

    But that wasn’t even my main point. My main point is that, for all their yak about “Social” this and “Social” that, true cooperation only comes from a free society among free individuals. The whole idea of free trade is based on people cooperating to make better products and better services. In contrast, socialism and collectivism encourage selfishness. Collectivist economies are zero-sum in nature. What one person gains, another person loses. So naturally this encourages people to simultaneously grab what they can for themselves while also wallowing in envy over the person who has more than they do. Rather than inspire people to cooperate so that everyone can benefit, instead it encourages the “Losers” to rat out the “Winners” to the authorities, so that “Equality” is ensured by everyone losing (except the authorities, of course).

  15. Eric
    Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 09:14

    Of course, as an idiot that makes a specialty in compounding his idiocy, Myerson

    You make a grave mistake in assuming these people are idiots, just as Dana does in assuming they have “Good intentions”. I have come to believe that Marxism is based on a most sophisticated foundation of lies, all of which goes far in explaining why, despite all the mass murder, despotism, and threats to world peace, it has never been morally condemned in the way that, say, Nazism has been. And thus Mr. Myerson can get away with peddling his slop because he can still pose as an “Idealist” looking to create “The Perfect Society”.

    In order for conservatives, libertarians, and other freedom lovers to win, the myth of left wing moral superiority has to be destroyed. Left wing ideology has to be attacked and demolished on a moral basis, not merely an intellectual or practical basis.”

    Well, let’s start with the simple stuff; clearing away the brush so to speak.

    You say, “Mr. Myerson can get away with peddling his slop because he can still pose as an “Idealist” looking to create “The Perfect Society”.”

    My point is that I don’t think that he is getting away with either peddling it, or coming off personally as an (a moral, perhaps) idealist.

    I thought it was pretty plain that when I refer to his idiocy I am not assigning him some victim status deserving of compassion … as in “Poor mentally disabled Myerson flailing about in the swamp of his own sophistry”. Nor am I saying that he lacks all malevolent cleverness. What I am saying is that his essay is a conceptual mess and is intrinsically dishonest – as a result of its numerous misrepresentations about the facts of history and about what the average American thinks he knows about those facts. As you call it, “slop”

    Now I happen to think that it is extrinsically dishonest as well. Meaning in this particular use of the phrase, that Myerson knows better, or knows that he should know better, and is engaging in a deliberate exercise in polemical deception.

    His idiocy then, consists in his low grade of work and childish presentation; obviously false, conceptually muddled and severely underestimating the philosophical and historical sophistication developed by his likely conservative and libertarian critics during the last 30-40 years. And, in thinking he can get away with passing it off.

    Frankly, he writes like those contemptible clowns over at that site Perry Hood likes so much, “Interesting Liberal Facts”, or whatever. You know the one: where some 96 IQ liberal doofus clumsily posing as a competent ironist, comes up with a litany of misrepresentations about non-leftists; after which the testosterone deficient readership over there gather around in order to appreciatively bray in each others’ beardless faces over the cleverness of the presentation.

    Who then, (meaning, what potential readers of Salon) could this liar Myerson possibly deceive other than Sandra Flucke and those intellectual garbage bags like her?

  16. Hoagie, one can use the same narrative you have used against leftist extremism, communism, as one could use against rightist extremism, fascism. The trick you have used is to define all leftists as communists, which you should know well, is far from the truth. I’m not surprised that Eric has latched on to your exaggerated rhetoric here. This does not represent our American reality, in my view, and never has over our history!

  17. Wriggling his way back in, on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 12:38

    Moralist pipes up,

    Hoagie, one can use the same narrative you have used against leftist extremism, communism, as one could use against rightist extremism, fascism. The trick you have used is to define all leftists as communists, which you should know well, is far from the truth. …”

    One cannot use the same narrative.

    The target of the criticism is the collectivist shared fate social sodality state (under whatever guise) which abolishes the distinction between the polity and society in order to make its domination of the individual as a social element, complete. This state vs private society boundary, is a distinction and boundary which both flavors of totalitarian collectivism, communism and fascism, seek to abolish.

    That’s the factual problem collectivist leftists continually trip over as they seek to rhetorically hang the collectivist albatross of fascism around the necks of classical liberals and libertarians who are critiquing collectivist socialism: the fact that fascism and socialism are both socially totalizing collectivist systems. Which is precisely what classical liberalism and libertarianism are not.

    It’s surprising that any leftist would try this stupid “you too” gambit nowadays; having had the plain facts thrown into their faces so many times previously.

    I guess they figure that having long ago lost all credibility and dignity, they have nothing further to lose now.

  18. Taking a second look a “Moralist’s” comment and stipulating for the sake of argument that it makes no pretense of relevance to the substance of Eric’s or Hoagie’s comments, then, well then it still makes no sense since it would be no more than a futile, fundamentally irrelevant red herring.

    Leftism is just a word for one brand of collectivism. Fascism, is a word for another version. But implying that you could argue that anti statist-collectivism taken to an “extreme” results in principle in state collectivism, is as absurd as to say that relentlessly reducing a pile of rubble to ground level makes it taller.

  19. The trick you have used is to define all leftists as communists, which you should know well, is far from the truth

    Thing is, Ban-Boy, left wingers have defended Communists going back at least as far as Alger Hiss. And they were doing it right through the 1980′s as they tried to prop up the Sandinistas, including most left wing Democrats in Congress. Not to mention they were doing their level best to help the Communists win and make America lose in Vietnam.

    Face it. Left wingers = America hating, freedom hating Commie loving traitors.

  20. You say, “Mr. Myerson can get away with peddling his slop because he can still pose as an “Idealist” looking to create “The Perfect Society”.”

    My point is that I don’t think that he is getting away with either peddling it, or coming off personally as an (a moral, perhaps) idealist.

    Well, my point is this Myerson fellow apparently has an audience. The fact that an outfit like Salon would publish him means someone thinks he has something worth saying. That means, at least in some circles, he has credibility. And the fact that he has represents a failure by the conservative/libertarian movement. Our side has focused so hard on trying to intellectually deconstruct left wing ideology that we haven’t focused on the true goal – to demolish it on moral grounds. Only when the population as a whole sees left wingers as moral scum, such that no publication outside of the most extreme fringes would dare publish someone who openly defends Communism, will our job be done.

  21. Wow. I just returned from an “extended” lunch and found so much to discuss. I am leaving for dinner with June shortly so I’ll make a fast comment and come back later.

    First, thank you Eric for your kind words about my post. I see by what you said that you understand the meaning of the Seven Sins and why it is so important to remember…We are not like Them! They practice the vices, we strive for the Virtues.

    Now in a short time, I must address the “Moralist” since his post could disappear by the time I return from dinner. First he begins with a preposterous allegation:

    Hoagie, one can use the same narrative you have used against leftist extremism, communism, as one could use against rightist extremism, fascism.

    I don’t know who he thinks he’s fooling other than himself but let me make one thing perfectly clear: Anarchy is “rightist extremism”, fascism is leftist just the same as communism. If you can’t grasp that you don’t know the players. Fascism was the invention of Mussolini who believed in melding the state with the people. Kind of a half-assed commie. But he was Italian so what would one expect?

    Next the “Moralist” accuses:

    The trick you have used is to define all leftists as communists, which you should know well, is far from the truth.

    No, I define all fucking, lousy, pathetic, stinkin’ communists as leftists, not the other way around. The fact you “thought” that was what I meant proves you are one. No trick involved, just seeing the truth, comrade.

    To continue:

    I’m not surprised that Eric has latched on to your exaggerated rhetoric here.

    Guess what comrade? Eric and I are not surprised that you’re not surprised. As a dyed-in-the-wool Red Diaper baby (yeah dude, I got your number) anyone to the right of Chairman Mao has “exaggerated rhetoric” and we, as American Freedom Lovers are by definition radicals. Then I am in good company with Eric, DNW, Yorkshire, Hube, Dana and many, many more.

    “This does not represent our American reality, in my view, and never has over our history!”

    Do not include us in your definition of “our American reality”. We are not 80 going on 17. We are adults who understand and have witnessed the destructive force and murderous failure of your communist philosophy in our lives. That’s how I know you’re a Red Diaper. Nobody but a full fledged, brain washed, propagandized True Believer could be such an anti American, anti free market, anti God leftist and not see it. Hell, Bill Ayers at least knows what he is. You are still in denial.

    June’s ready, but I have more to say. I’ll be back either tonight, depending on how much I drink, or in the morning. Eric, DNW and I have much to discuss. At the ADULT table.

  22. Oh, before I go. I have one thought on that asshole Myerson. Shakespeare said: ” Nothing is so common as the wish to be remarkable”. Myerson wishes to be remarkable however, he succeeds at being common.

  23. And now a view of the Privileged 1% as represented by our communist leader.

    In response to a Freedom of Information request to which it took the State Department 13 months to respond, CBS News has obtained the Office of Protocol’s expense calculations for the first five state dinners of the Obama presidency.

    Nov. 24, 2009 – State dinner for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. $572,187.36
    May 19, 2010 – State dinner for President Felipe Calderon of Mexico. $563,479.92
    Jan. 19, 2011 – State dinner for President Hu Jintao of China. $412,329.73.
    June 7, 2011 – State dinner for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. $215,883.36
    Oct. 13, 2011 – State dinner for President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. $203,053.34

    The State Department has yet to respond to another Freedom of Information request filed seven months ago for its rundown of the expenses for the state dinner honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron on March 14, 2012.

    Congress has been waiting for similar information from the State Department even longer.

    Tonight, the White House fetes socialist French President Francois Hollande.

    Mary J. Blige will perform and the menu is as follows:

    Highlighting food from across the country, menu items include a first course of American Osetra Caviar from Illinois, quail eggs from Pennsylvania and 12 varieties of potatoes from farms in New York, Idaho and California. For the salad course, the White House details a Winter Garden Salad that “pays tribute to The First Lady’s White House Kitchen Garden.”

    The main course is a dry-aged rib eye beef from a family-owned farm in Colorado that will be served with Jasper Hill Farm Blue Cheese crisp from Vermont.

    Finishing the meal are a selection of sweets. There will be a chocolate malted cake that combines bittersweet chocolate from Hawaii and tangerines from Florida and will be served with vanilla ice cream from Pennsylvania. Additionally, the menu boasts fudge made from Vermont maple syrup, lavender shortbread cookies and cotton candy dusted with orange zest.

    A selection of wines priced between $30 to $65 will be offered from California, Washington and Monticello, Va., which both Obama and Hollande visited Monday.

    One wonders how this man of the proletariat can justify his attendance at this one-percenter affair.

    Your tax dollars, my tax dollars collected by a corrupt government which is out of control. A government which no longer finds the need to serve the people, but be served BY the people. A president who talks about his pen and phone as if he were a king. A president who states “That’s what’s good about being President, I can do what I want”. These are the leftists that our “fellow” citizens put in power. The idiots like the comrades who post here. They have brought us to the edge of tyranny and the brink of bankruptcy. Who are the 1%’ers? The Left are the 1%’ers.

  24. BTW, those privileged 1%’ers in the White House, those lying scum who call themselves men of the people while stealing the people’s money to aggrandize themselves and their friends (think Solyndra) also have a cabal of lying News media that they are in bed with. More liars in bed with this administration, spreading propaganda as news for the dumbass comrades to digest and repeat. Check this list out (with thanks to Tim Graham):

    The Obamas have held seven state dinners so far, and among the guests were all three current network evening news anchors, as well as a thank-you invite to Katie Couric for that Sarah Palin interview in 2008. Here’s a list of some of the top media guests over the years:

    November 14, 2009: Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh

    Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg News
    Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post
    Katie Couric, then-CBS anchor
    Jason DeParle, New York Times (husband of White House official Nancy-Ann DeParle)
    Thomas Friedman , New York Times
    Sanjay Gupta, CNN
    Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric (then-owners of NBC)
    Gayle King (pre-CBS News)
    Raju Narisetti, Washington Post
    Ian Cameron, ABC
    Robin Roberts, ABC
    Brian Williams, NBC
    Fareed Zakaria, CNN

    May 19, 2010: Mexican president Felipe Calderon

    Giselle Fernandez, former network reporter
    Whoopi Goldberg, ABC “The View”
    Jorge Ramos, Univision
    Maria Elena Salinas, Univision
    Ian Cameron, ABC

    June 7, 2011: German chancellor Angela Merkel

    E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
    William Drozdiak, former longtime Washington Post editor
    David Leonhardt, New York Times DC bureau chief
    Virginia Moseley, ABC
    Ian Cameron. ABC
    Diane Sawyer. ABC
    Gerald Seib, Wall Street Journal

    October 13, 2011: South Korean president Lee Myung-bak

    Claire Shipman, ABC
    Juju Chang, ABC
    Neal Shapiro, former NBC News president, now at WNET (PBS)
    Candy Crowley, CNN
    Virginia Moseley, ABC
    Scott Pelley, CBS
    Ian Cameron, ABC
    Carla Anne Robbins, former deputy editorial page editor, New York Times
    Guy Gugliotta, former Washington Post reporter

    January 19, 2011: Hu Jintao, leader of Red China

    Christiane Amanpour, ABC
    James Fallows, former editor of U.S. News
    Thomas Friedman, New York Times
    Bob Iger, Disney CEO (ABC)
    David Ignatius, Washington Post
    Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO (NBC)
    Nicolas Kristof, New York Times
    Sheryl WuDunn, former New York Times reporter
    Wendi Deng Murdoch (then-wife of Rupert)
    Virginia Moseley, ABC
    Ian Cameron, ABC

    March 14, 2012: David Cameron, prime minster of the United Kingdom

    Lionel Barber, editor, Financial Times
    Ian Cameron, ABC
    Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post
    Claire Shipman, ABC
    Jason DeParle, New York Times
    Gwen Ifill, PBS
    Katty Kay, BBC
    Debra Lee, CEO of Black Entertainment Television
    Virginia Moseley, ABC
    Charlie Rose, PBS
    Jeff Shell, chairman, NBCUniversal International
    Marva Smalls, VP of Nickelodeon Networks Group
    Andrew Sullivan
    Paul Tash, CEO of [Tampa Bay] Times Publishing Co.
    Gillian Tett., Financial Times
    Richard Wolffe, MSNBC

    Notice how many FOX News people were invited? Notice how many conservatives? That’s Obama’s idea of “reaching across the aisle”. I’m surprised comrade Perry wasn’t on the list. Perhaps he couldn’t remove his lips from their commie ass long enough to eat dinner. More likely he’s just a bottom feeding foot soldier to the Elitists he worships so dutifully. These 1%’ers stealing the working mans money for $500,000 parties and 11 million dollar vacations.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/02/12/media-bigwigs-obama-state-dinner-list-cnn-president-top-nyt-editor-steph#ixzz2t7dBsbKH

  25. Hoagie relates the cost of some state dinners:
    “Nov. 24, 2009 – State dinner for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. $572,187.36
    May 19, 2010 – State dinner for President Felipe Calderon of Mexico. $563,479.92
    Jan. 19, 2011 – State dinner for President Hu Jintao of China. $412,329.73.
    June 7, 2011 – State dinner for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. $215,883.36
    Oct. 13, 2011 – State dinner for President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea. $203,053.34″

    So based on the sums shown here, the spending for meals for our generally solid allies is about half or less than is spent on leaders from deeply corrupt nations.

    Just for kicks then:

    1. Project the likely price of a state dinner held for Fidel Castro’s brother, or the head mullah of Iran.

    a, $625,436.07
    b, $1,135,667.28
    c billions and billions and billions

    2. On the other hand, and extrapolating only from the figures shown here, David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain, our oldest, closest, and most culturally similar ally, was probably taken to which respect-for-Britain-message themed drive thru ?

    a, Burger King
    b, Union Jack in the Box
    c, Taco Bell
    d, Don’t feed your kids Popeye’s for breakfast

  26. Don’t forget, Obama supposedly gave the then British PM and/or the Queen a gift of – get this! – an iPod containing all his favorite speeches.

    Narcissism, anyone?

  27. Hey comrade, did you hear? Michelle wore a $12,000 dress to the “Hollande we love you our fellow socialist” party. How many $12,000 dresses does Mrs. Comrade own? Now my wife, being an obsessive Korean will not buy anything that isn’t a “name”. Everything she wears, every pair of shoes, every handbag, scarf, coat, vest or even work-out clothes is a “name”. Fendi, Channel, Burberry, Coach, Dolce & Gabanna or whatever you name it. But she doesn’t own a $12,000 dress. Of course we don’t throw $500,000 parties. We can’t afford to cause we’re too busy paying for communists to throw them. You know, the guys worried about “income inequality”.

Comments are closed.